The fundamental nature of the fixed vs. liquid debate is reflected in the accessibility-centric nature of Richard’s site vs. the (visual) design oriented Whitespace.

I know I’m oversimplifying but it seems to me that a good liquid design seems to place more importance on a site’s audience rather than on its designer.

Fixed-width designs have, for me, an un-webby, print-world feel to them. They seem to be favoured by designers who have made the migration from print without quite grasping the fluid nature of the web as a medium.

This is as good a point as any to mention an oldie but goldie article at A List Apart called “A Dao of Web Design”:

“What I sense is a real tension between the web as we know it, and the web as it would be. It’s the tension between an existing medium, the printed page, and its child, the web.”

It seems to me that, all too often, designers make the decision to go with a fixed width design because it is the easier path to tread. I don’t deny that liquid design can be hard. To make a site that scales equally well to very wide as well as very narrow resolutions is quite a challenge.

That challenge is part of web design. I sometimes get the feeling that too much emphasis is placed on the “design” part and not enough on the “web”.

I’m speaking in general terms here. I’m not talking specifically about Dan Cederholm and Doug Bowman redesigning their personal sites. Personal sites are just that: personal.

I’d be worried, though, if I saw this liquid layout reversal trend extend to established commercial or public information sites.